Three years ago, a 14 year old boy, Brian Rossiter, was arrested along with two other boys for public order offences in Clonmel. He was brought to Clonmel Garda station where he was put in a cell on his own. The following morning, he was found unconscious in his cell and taken to hospital, first in Clonmel and then to Cork. Three days later he died, never having regained consciousness.

One of the children arrested with Brian Rossiter has made a formal complaint that he was assaulted by a garda while he was in the cells. He states that Brian had stated that he too had been assaulted. The gardaí have at all times claimed that Brian was intoxicated by a mixture of drink and drugs and this information found its way into the autopsy report. We now know that the State Pathologist relied solely upon this information which came from Garda sources and had no toxicology test results when she wrote her report. Subsequent toxicology tests show no evidence of either drink or drugs in Brian's body.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has apologised for the manner in which his Department dealt with pleas from the Rossiter family. However, what baffles everyone concerned is why the Commissions of Investigation Act, which was put through by the Minister only 18 months ago, has not been used to inquire into this situation. Instead, he has used obsolete and little known legislation from 1924. The legislation which he has decided to invoke allows him to inquire into "the truth of any charge of complaint of neglect or violation of duty preferred against a member of the Garda Síochána". No one, the Rossiter family included, has preferred a charge against any member of the Garda Síochána. Who decided on the seven gardaí being inquired into on this list furnished to Mr. Hartnett, the senior counsel? It was not drawn up in consultation with or by the Rossiter family. Is the Minister making complaints against these seven gardaí? Why are certain gardaí who were involved on the night in question not included on the list?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Experts believe that to choose to use this legislation is to choose an inquiry that will prevent questions being asked and answered, rather than establishing the truth or allowing it to be revealed. If we passed legislation a year and a half ago called the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 that provides for a certain type of speedy, more efficient and certainly cheaper inquiry than we have been accustomed to, why is the Minister not using it instead of going back to the Dublin Police Act 1924, which he sought to apply in the case of Dean Lyons but had to change his mind? The impression one gets is that the Minister is either so chuffed with his discovery of this Act of which nobody knew that he wants to use it somewhere or the truth is being deliberately prevented from coming out.

The Minister is very anxious that the truth comes out. As I understand it, he is very satisfied that the inquiry, as constituted, will allow Mr. Hartnett the powers to summon witnesses and examine them under oath and all aspects of the arrest and detention of Brian Rossiter. He may require that any serving or retired member of the Garda be called to answer questions under oath, which is not a question of prosecutions. He may require persons other than gardaí to give evidence and is empowered to make findings and reach conclusions. It is the Minister's intention to publish the report. Whatever about the arguments regarding whether the 1924 Act or the recent inquiries Act should be used, it is the Minister's intention to do all of the above.

An argument that could also be relevant to the other case is that this is in keeping with the principles employed by the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. There have been some complaints that the inquiry will be held in private. Mr. Hartnett has indicated to the Minister he intends to hold his inquiry in private but this is in keeping with the principles employed by the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 also. The object of this general principle is to make the proceedings less adversarial. The Minister has indicated he intends to publish the report of the Rossiter inquiry.

Deputy Rabbitte has raised this issue a number of times over the years and I accept his bona fides when he says that he wants the case investigated. An investigation into the matter is being undertaken by an eminent senior counsel which allows all of the issues that have been raised to be investigated. This is important. No one can refuse to contribute or be investigated by the inquiry, be they gardaí, former gardaí or other individuals, and the conclusions will be made public. The Minister's intention is to ensure this matter is dealt with fully to the satisfaction of the family.

The Taoiseach said the Minister is satisfied that this method of inquiry is adequate. The Minister was similarly satisfied about this method of inquiry in the Dean Lyons case and he needed to change his view. No other body I have discussed this matter with is satisfied and the Taoiseach does not appear to understand that there are only specific questions, which are listed in the correspondence from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which, incidentally, came from Garda headquarters. Only specific questions can be raised against specific gardaí.

Why are there only seven gardaí, why these particular seven, why exclude gardaí involved on the night and who was it that made these complaints in the first place? The unfortunate Rossiter family does not even know enough to make a complaint against any garda and has not done so. This Act expressly requires that one must be able to lodge such a complaint or there cannot be an inquiry but the Minister has ploughed ahead when his Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 would seem to be tailor-made for this situation.

We are talking about a 14 year old boy who died as a result of detention in a Garda station. We are talking about a situation where the State pathologist relied on information from the Garda to the effect he was drugged and intoxicated when subsequent toxicology tests showed he had neither drugs nor alcohol in his blood. This is a matter of grave public concern.

Hear, hear.

Why will the Minister not address the House and answer who selected the seven gardaí, who made complaints against them and why is he going down this road when he needed to back off in the case of Dean Lyons? This legislation has never been used before. It is very odd and I ask that the Taoiseach have it examined before it proceeds any further as it is quite farcical. I regret that the focus of commentary on it so far has been on a different issue, an issue that I incidentally agree with the Minister about. It is a diversion. The real issue is the terms of reference of this inquiry.

Hear, hear.

There is no argument about the last issue Deputy Rabbitte raised. All I can say to him on the information I have, and I will check the point he made, is that the inquiry, as constituted, will allow Mr. Hartnett to summon any witnesses and examine them under oath on all aspects of the arrest and all aspects of the detention of Brian. He may require any serving or retired member of the Garda Síochána, not just listed members, to answer questions under oath, which I assume includes everyone who would have been available that night, called to the scene, involved in the arrest and in the station. I understand this is what is meant but I will check. He may require persons other than gardaí to give evidence, which will obviously be anyone who has any information on this matter. He is empowered to make findings and reach conclusions. It is the Minister's intention to publish the report.

Why go back 80 years to the 1924 Act?

As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe knows, we use legislation here every day that goes back years.

We introduced a new Act last year.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

What about modern legislation?

If all these powers are available, what is restricting Mr. Hartnett in any way from taking up the point? I have heard what Deputy Rabbitte said and will raise the matter with the Minister but, on the information I have been given, it seems that Mr. Hartnett is not restricted.